Delhi High Court

46,428 judgments

Year:

AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v. Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited

12 Nov 2024 · Mini Pushkarna · 2024:DHC:9153

The Delhi High Court granted summary judgment in favor of AstraZeneca, restraining Westcoast Pharmaceutical from infringing its patent on Osimertinib, due to the defendant's failure to file a defense and undertaking not to infringe.

civil appeal_allowed Significant summary judgment patent infringement Order XIII-A CPC Commercial Courts Act 2015

Opella Healthcare Group v. Vaibhav Vohra & Anr.

12 Nov 2024 · Mini Pushkarna · 2024:DHC:9102

The Delhi High Court cancelled the respondent's deceptively similar trademark and copyright registrations for 'PHENSERYL', upholding the petitioner's prior rights in 'PHENSEDYL' and emphasizing the need to maintain register purity and prevent consumer confusion in pharmaceutical trademarks.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant trademark rectification deceptive similarity copyright registration artistic work originality

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 v. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd.

12 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:9092-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that reassessment under Section 147 requires assessing the income forming the basis of reopening before any other income can be assessed, dismissing the Revenue's appeal against deletion of addition and quashing of reassessment.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 147 Income Tax Act Reassessment jurisdiction Reason to believe Explanation 3 to Section 147

Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Jonas Woodhead and Sons India Limited

12 Nov 2024 · Mini Pushkarna · 2024:DHC:9046

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to Aktiebolaget Volvo against Jonas Woodhead & Sons India Ltd. for unauthorized use and infringement of the well-known 'VOLVO' trademark on vehicle parts.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement permanent injunction well-known trademark passing off

COMVIVA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGN

12 Nov 2024 · Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:8990

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and held that a computer-implemented invention providing a technical solution for secure electronic payment authentication is patentable and not excluded as a business method or computer program per se under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Section 3(k) Patents Act business method computer program per se technical effect

Ghayour, Advocates v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Nov 2024 · Subramonium Prasad · 2024:DHC:8995

The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court's cognizance order under Section 186 IPC for non-compliance with Section 195 CrPC but refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet, affirming the police's power to investigate despite procedural bars on courts.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 195 CrPC Cognizance Obstruction of public servant Quashing of FIR

MS Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. MS NCS Auto Hub Private Limited

12 Nov 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8852
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the arbitration clause's venue is the seat of arbitration and that jurisdictional objections are to be decided by the arbitrator.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 arbitration agreement seat of arbitration

Bal Kishan & Ors. v. State

12 Nov 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8916

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction under Section 323 IPC, upheld the probation order, and directed the appellants to pay the compensation as ordered by the trial court.

criminal appeal_dismissed probation of offenders compensation Section 323 IPC leniency in sentencing

Jayant Budhiraja v. State

12 Nov 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:8933

The Delhi High Court upheld framing of charges under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act against the petitioner for employing a juvenile under 14 years, holding that a prima facie case was made out and defenses are to be examined at trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant juvenile justice Section 23 JJ Act charge framing prima facie case

Sachin Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

12 Nov 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:8932

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash FIR and charges under Section 370 IPC and Section 23 JJ Act, holding that prima facie offences were established and inherent powers to quash must be exercised sparingly after charges are framed.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR Section 370 IPC trafficking

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia & Ors.

12 Nov 2024 · Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:8955

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction and ancillary reliefs against defendants selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton products, decreeing the suit ex-parte under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC due to defendants' failure to contest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off permanent injunction Order VIII Rule 10 CPC

Abdul Salam v. GNCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Nov 2024 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:8959

The Delhi High Court directed the authorities to provide the petitioner a hearing and pass a speaking order on his citizenship status after considering all documents, without deciding the merits.

administrative petition_dismissed Procedural birth certificate cancellation citizenship verification right to be heard speaking order

M Balan v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Nov 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8724-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner's plea for an additional inquiry as a representation and pass a reasoned order within 12 weeks, without expressing any opinion on merits or jurisdiction.

administrative petition_dismissed Court of Inquiry Writ Petition Territorial Jurisdiction Representation

Ajay Darshan Behera v. Jamia Millia Islamia

11 Nov 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8733-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Statute 37 of Jamia Millia Islamia Act, rejecting the petitioner's challenge that it violates Articles 14 and 16 by lacking inquiry procedure before removal of teachers.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Statute 37 Jamia Millia Islamia removal of teachers Articles 14 and 16

Murlidhar v. EX SPR (MACP NK) P Arun Kumar

11 Nov 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8700-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order granting disability pension and broad banding to an ex-serviceman whose depressive disorder was held attributable to military service despite contrary medical board findings.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces tribunal medical board opinion attributable to service

Rakshit Khurana v. Indus Tower Limited

11 Nov 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8761-DB

The Delhi High Court held that inter se shareholder disputes concerning company management do not constitute commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and dismissed the appeal challenging the plaint's return.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant commercial dispute Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shareholder dispute derivative suit

Rita Sharma v. Ashok Kumar

11 Nov 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:9560
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by accepting proved ITR income, recognizing major sons as dependents, and awarding loss of consortium to each legal heir.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 loss of dependency income tax returns personal expenses deduction

Shakuntala Devi v. Mohan Das

11 Nov 2024 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024 SCC OnLine Del 47

The Delhi High Court allowed the landlord's revision petition setting aside the dismissal of eviction petition, holding that bona fide requirement was proved and alternative accommodation was unsuitable under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

property appeal_allowed Significant bona fide requirement eviction petition Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alternative accommodation

Panchhi Petha Store v. Union of India & Ors

11 Nov 2024 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:9082
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the Regional Director under Section 16 of the Companies Act cannot decide trademark ownership in company name rectification applications and set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Section 16 Companies Act 2013 Regional Director jurisdiction Company name rectification Trademark ownership

M/S PAUL ENGINEERING WORKS AND ANR v. SHRI RAM DIYA SHARMA

11 Nov 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:9036

The Delhi High Court upheld the allowance of amendment clarifying delay rather than refusal in a suit for specific performance, holding that limitation begins only on clear refusal when no date is fixed for performance.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Specific Performance Agreement to Sell Limitation Order VI Rule 17 CPC